[OT] Survey: Voluntary Taxation

My question is...
Why don't all the celebrities who push for increased taxes give more voluntarily?

You'll never know 'cause all the Randoids have you on ignore.

Supposedly, we do, since it's a representive democracy (kinda..). I'm not happy ab how some of my taxes are used. I'd prefer for social programs to be more utilitarian and bennefit the ppl who will make the most of them, rather than being based on low income. But yeah, id pay taxes. I can't afford to build my own roads, or hire my own security, and I wouldn't want that much on my plate if I could.

A) definite no. Randian fantasy horseshit.

B) only if it coincides with my agenda.

A. Yes. I think voluntary taxation would be great. But I don't think it would work. Too many people would choose to pay nothing.

B. I would voluntarily pay tax. However, I would certainly pay less than I do now. I like the services I receive but I don't like paying for them.

I don't think voluntary taxation would work. If I lived in that kind of society, I probably wouldn't pay anything, and neither would many other people. A more ideal system would be to privatize as much as humanly possible; the private functions would obviously be paid for through usage fees. Privatize the Post Office and open it up to competition, and then let them charge whatever they want for first class mail. Privatize the local libraries, the Smithsonian, the National Parks, the local fire departments, etc. That's kind of like voluntary taxation, in a way, because you would only pay when you actually need to use the service, and people who don't use it wouldn't pay. But there will always be some things that can't or shouldn't be privatized or eliminated, like the military, the FBI, local and state law enforcement, the court system, Congress, the State Department, etc. These remaining things would be paid for with a head tax or a flat tax or a sales tax, both at the federal and state levels. And whatever method of taxation we would use, it wouldn't be voluntary. To me, this sounds like a better system than voluntary taxation.

Public schools are cool, because they teach kids to use paragraphs. ;)

Personally, I think Individual Income Tax and property tax is a crime. I like the idea of taxing sales only. And of course corporations, lol.

> a) Would you want to live in a society where taxation was voluntary?

Sure, the US is already like that depending on income level.

> b) If you did live in such a society would you voluntarily give up some of your income as tax?

Possibly. If they were doing what the US federal government does now and spending tax money and writing laws for campaign donors, no. If the government were performing vital functions, yes. The problem with our current setup is all of the whatever-industrial complexes and regulatory capture where various industries get everything they want at everyone else's expense.

^ I agree.

Asking, because today I'm thinking of various ideas for the "ideal digital currency". Would it include a mandatory taxation mechanism or not?

@Stognasty said: "Personally, I think Individual Income Tax and property tax is a crime. I like the idea of taxing sales only. And of course corporations, lol."

Should a very high income individual pay less than a failing corporation that's still turning a profit?

Any mandatory taxation method seems like it would have to be either a per-transfer excise or require the equivalent of filling out a customs form for each transfer.

The question would be how to identify who gets the mandatory taxes and for what. If, e.g., two people in Canada are using an exchange based in the US, does the US get the taxes, or are the people making the transaction required to have their locations unmasked to pay local taxes? Are customs duties part of it in case a Canadian sells and American some dank weed?

I think it would be a better idea to keep taxes, duties, etc, at the payment processing level, rather than at the currency level. Ie., if I buy something with Bitcoin on overstock.com, they look up the shipping address and apply the appropriate taxes. If on the other hand, I'm sending with cancer a monetary gift help them survive, that wouldn't be taxable in the US if the gifts totaled under $10,000 for the year between the two of us.

Any mandatory taxation method seems like it would have to be either a per-transfer excise or require the equivalent of filling out a customs form for each transfer.

@ppwh said: "If they were doing what the US federal government does now and spending tax money and writing laws for campaign donors, no... . The problem with our current setup is all of the whatever-industrial complexes and regulatory capture where various industries get everything they want at everyone else's expense."

You're talking about corporate welfare, most of which is actually in the form of "tax expenditures," or carve-outs in the tax code. But if we switched to a flat tax, or a head tax, or a sales tax, and if we didn't exempt anything, wouldn't this problem just take care of itself? No one would ever be able to say, effectively, I pay less than everyone else because the government likes me more.

@Jack wrote: "I like the services I receive but I don't like paying for them."
----------------
LOL!

Please stop bringing logic into the discussion.

@Dougster said: "Asking, because today I'm thinking of various ideas for the "ideal digital currency". Would it include a mandatory taxation mechanism or not?"

If we privatized lots of the government functions, phased out welfare and transfer payments, balanced the budget, and switched to one of the taxation systems that I advocate, I don't even think we would need crypto currencies anymore. The dollar would be extremely stable.

That's pretty off topic. Might be better for the Hillary thread.

But no. Why should a high income individual pay more? Corporation's are a necessary evil bc of their role in our place in the global economy, and bc they are needed for national security, but there's no reason for them to be propped up beyond that. Corporate welfare goes way beyond tax laws. It's become deeply systematic and works hand in hand w our social welfare system, and other system.

@BurlingtonHoFactory, I'm actually a lot more concerned with the spending and regulatory side than the taxing side. E.g., Monsanto having the judges they want appointed so their liability for mass poisonings is limited, or having their lawyers and executives placed on the Food Safety branch of the FDA. The amount they are paying in taxes or receiving from the government is small potatoes compared to poisoning the country's food / water supplies and ruining our topsoil.

I don't want to pay taxes to support a system like that.

I kind of like the simplicity of just saying: all transactions get taxed at x% and its mandatory/built into the protocol. If you don't like then use your own nation's crypto-currency.

@ pphw, exactly. Taxes can't really offset that, it's almost a red herring that ppl focus on the tax part so heavily, instead of their systematic leaching.

There are already societies like this . They are called Italy and Greece, where everyone lies about their incomes. Look how well it's working out for them.

> I kind of like the simplicity of just saying: all transactions get taxed at x% and its mandatory/built into the protocol

Sounds like the currency users would end up being liable for double taxation, where this would just be an additional tax in addition to what would otherwise be charged. Good luck getting anyone to use that. Everyone would still required to follow existing laws to pay certain amounts to various levels of government. In other words, just because there is a new currency designed to give some percent to some level of government somewhere doesn't mean that the extra percent the county has levied to pay for a new stadium will be forgiven.

A. No. If I have to pay taxes, I want the law to enforce everyone else paying taxes according to the law. The IRS enforces mandatory payments. If you don't pay taxes due, you pay fines, penalties and possibly jail time. I do not call that voluntary.
B. I might donate a tiny amount to taxes if everyone else seemed to be but it wouldn't be anywhere near as much as what I've been paying.

An example would be how many people volunteer 10% of their income to their church? That is voluntary. I bet most people do not and that's among those who count themselves among a certain religion. I do donate some money but tegu track give back to Caesar what is owed Caesar so I do not donate 10% of untaxed income. I have to decide how much I will have left over after taxes and expenses. That really cuts things down. They also teach not to give away what you will need so you also need to save some for a rainy day. After all that, there isn't much left to give.

If governments operated like that and only got a few percent at most of what people saved during a year, the government would have gone broke many years ago. Only the most generous would give 10% of everything they saved each year and the foolish in my opinion would be the only ones giving away 10% of everything pretax because they would likely run out of money they need after paying taxes, expenses, and saving for a rainy day.

Except if they are rich. The rich can afford to give away 10% pretax without an issue popping up. All of us peasants who don't make over 100K a year need our money to get by. Trump, Clinton, Pelosi, all these politicians don't seem to understand just making health care payments is a major ordeal. I'd rather just have catastrophic Heath insurance with a 5000 deductible and only pay $100 a month max than these massive payments required with our current system if your employer isn't paying it. In fact you are still paying even if employed because your employer is taking it away from your paycheck before you see it. I could have saved over $50000 towards my own health care over the past 10 years if I had not been forced into the system. Insurance has become a major rip off in this country and our stupid politicians now enforce it with massive penalties for not enrolling and offer no cheap alternative. They don't feel the pain because they are millionaires. Congress and the president should offer a catastrophic plan to require Heath care payments in the event of accidents, major illness and routine preventative care at a very affordable rate and drop the massive insurance requirements tax penalties. Stick it to the insurance companies.

With no company health insurance payments, my plan requires over 500 a month. I went to the doctor about 5 times in the last 10 years. The dentist too every year just for routine stuff like a cleaning, X-rays. 550 a month for 10 years. Astronomical payments between me and what the company I work for could have paid me instead of an insurance company. My rent used to be less than 500 a month 20 years ago.

@ppwh,

I'm not going to argue with you about Monsanto or poisoning or the general role of corporations. Suffice it to say, I completely disagree with you on all of that. But this thread is about taxation. If we're not careful, we'll all be talking about Hitler again LOL. Anyway, the OP wants to know if a system of voluntary taxation would work and if we would pay. I gave him my opinion about a system that I think would work better. I didn't say it would solve all the world's problems. But I think it would help some things.

Burlington, That was part of his explaination in his answer to the slightly off topic question that you asked lol.

Sorry, I should have said: "... the OP wants to know if we would want to live under a system of voluntary taxation and if we would ever willingly pay anything, ourselves. I gave him my opinion about a system that I would prefer to live under. I also happen to think it would work better."

@Bj99,

I was responding to Stognasty, who said that he believed the individual income tax was "a crime," but that corporations should should still have to pay taxes, presumably on their income. I asked him a hypothetical question so that he could clarify his position. I thought I made that clear.

Also, you said "It's become deeply systematic and works hand in hand w our social welfare system... ."

I think you mean 'systemic,' not 'systematic.' I learned the difference between the two words in public school.

@Dougster is this the setup for a new comedy routine.

> this thread is about taxation

The questions of taxation, and what you get for the taxes you pay are inextricably linked. To take your extreme example of a genocidal government, that would be something I would be opposed to funding. On the other hand, I don't have a problem paying a relatively small amount for roads to be built and allowing for eminent domain to build them.

> Suffice it to say, I completely disagree with you on all of that.

So, you think it's OK to for corporations to run the FDA resulting in farmers selling raw milk being guns-drawn raided? Or private prisons to bribe judges and pay off politicians for longer sentences and harsher drug laws, the effect of which is to just end up funding cartels and increase levels of violence?

From your earlier message, it had sounded like we were more in agreement that agencies such as the FDA should become less powerful to avoid having it do things like this. Less government power means less potential harm from regulatory capture.

Haha! Touché. I did use it systemic, but I think corporate welfare is also systematic.

Like, "it has become deeply systemic, and works systematically w our social welfare system."

ppw: "Sounds like the currency users would end up being liable for double taxation, where this would just be an additional tax in addition to what would otherwise be charged. Good luck getting anyone to use that."

Wrong I meant this was the only way the government would raise money. No idea why you would say it sounded like I meant it as double taxation. Just you looking for a strawman, I guess. Lol!

@Dougster, it was in response to your mention of the ideal digital currency, seeking to put it in context of how it might work in today's world were it to be launched without a government structured around it. It sounds like you're thinking pretty far beyond currency with this, so the context of existing tax structures obviously wouldn't be in the mix in that case.

Anyway, it wasn't a strawman. It was examining an concept for how it could go wrong/potential unintended consequences.

@ppwh said:

1) "The questions of taxation, and what you get for the taxes you pay are inextricably linked."

Okay. Corporations get special favors, which is wrong. In response, some people want to tax them extra to make up for it. Why not just take away the special benefits that they receive in the first place? No need to punish people with higher taxes for things that they're getting that you disapprove of.

2) "I don't have a problem paying a relatively small amount for roads to be built and allowing for eminent domain to build them."

Neither do I.

3) "So, you think it's OK to for corporations to run the FDA..."

I don't think there should be such a thing as the FDA.

4) "... resulting in farmers selling raw milk being guns-drawn raided?"

I think you should be allowed to sell and drink raw milk. Personally, I would never drink it but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to. It's insane that the government responds that way.

5) "Or private prisons to bribe judges and pay off politicians..."

Private prisons are nothing compared to prison guard unions. The overwhelming majority of prisons are NOT private, and these public unions lobby constantly for more prisons and more prisoners. Plus, the over-incarceration problem has existed since long before there were private prisons. Personally, I believe private prisons are more humane, better run, cheaper, cleaner, etc. I'm sure there are lots of exceptions, but that's my view, for the simple reason that it's easier to sue a private company if they mistreat you. If I had to go to prison, I'd want to go to a private prison. It ain't paradise and it would still suck. But consider the alternative.

6) "... for longer sentences and harsher drug laws, the effect of which is to just end up funding cartels and increase levels of violence?"

I don't believe there should be such a thing as drug laws for adults. Let alone putting them in jail for using or selling drugs.

7) "From your earlier message, it had sounded like we were more in agreement that agencies such as the FDA should become less powerful to avoid having it do things like this. Less government power means less potential harm from regulatory capture."

Yeah, we agree on that. No one would lobby or look for special regulatory favors if the government had very little power.

A.) I would not. I kinda like having roads, bridges, traffic lights, an army, all of which were created for society's benefit, mine included.

Recently, I see politicians as just another middle man. In the same way that clearing houses can become obsolete by use of the Blockchain, I think politicians could become obsolete with the use of another Blockchain used for voting.... maybe.

"In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance."

--Ayn Rand


Makes perfect sense to me.

> the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

This sounds really good until the local private fire service sits by watching a stripper's house burn because it was the 9th bill on the list after new tattoos, nipple piercings, the car payment, phone service, etc and the fire spreads, engulfing surrounding houses. I guess the paying customers would get their money's worth on labor, but still...

any Rand is fucking goofy at Disney.

It's not that rediculous to imagine that ppl might actually pay taxes on a volunteer basis. People do donate to causes they believe in. I gave 2k after the tidal wave in Thailand, and I knew a girl who gave 100 out of every check to the volunteer stuff when we were in the military. Churches make money just fine. I also give to my college and participate in "buy nothing." I even gave a dance to a pl who'd lost his job and came along w his friend. I'm not even a blessing heart type. I wouldn't donate to the current food stamps system, but I would probably donate to wic, and planned parenthood. People do want to support the causes they believe in. It's not uncommon for guys to try to hide the fact that they are tipping me after lap dances. I don't make my kid's dad pay the court child support ammt, but he's always been generous if I asked for help with something. I think forcing really might take away the good feelings ppl want to get from their part in supporting their country.

Ouch.. that was long. Sorry :P

@RandomMember, @ppwh,

People always seem to jump to Ayn Rand whenever they want to debate libertarianism, privatization, and related ideas. Mostly, this is because she was a kook. I think she was an interesting person and she actually did a lot of good in the world, but she was still a strange person. And she spoke only for herself. Those are her personal opinions. She's probably right, though, that IS what taxation would be like in a *fully* free society. But most people, myself included, don't actually want to have absolute 100% freedom. Being forced to pay for police, courts, an army, etc., doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. We should maximize freedom, yes, but that doesn't mean we ever get to a society with no government at all, or one with voluntary taxation. Having said that, there are actually many places in the USA that have privatized fire departments. They still put out the fires, even if you didn't pay your bill. They don't discriminate. If necessary, they just send you a bill afterwards. It's not really that crazy.

Yeah. They do discriminate. That's why insurance is way higher if you are in a volunteer fire dept area and do not subscribe. If there's a widespread fire, they focus on their subscribers first, or something. I tried to find out bc I had an expensive one.

With our deficit we need to increase revenues AND reduce expenditures, but that is political suicide.

It is frustrating to see how our taxes are spent. We need security and infrastructure and many other programs, but with the government having such little oversight as to how the money is spent, and so much pork in bills....

Damn, I gotta stop now or I'll have to change my profile name to SJG or BookGuy.

If you don't subscribe, I think your insurance rates should be much higher. Just like if you don't have an alarm system. Or if you have had a lot of previous claims. That's the point of insurance. It tries to determine a rate that makes sense based on your level of risk. And obviously, if two houses are burning next door to each other, they should put out the fire of the subscriber first. Just like if there were fires both in their own town and in a neighboring town, they should handle their own fires first before going to the neighboring communities. That's actually how government fire departments work, too.

@BurlingtonHoFactory, I was thinking of this story where the private fire department actually did let the house burn: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us…

I found Ayn Rand's writing to be interesting. I suspect that she was pushed farther to the extreme after living through the Bolshevik revolution and being subject to Soviet rule.

To Bj99's point, according to the numbers I have seen, groups who were supposed to be "helped" by the welfare state have actually been doing worse compared to when social welfare was handled through private charity.

Paul Zak gave a nice scientifically researched explanation on the biological basis for why this works on a voluntary basis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAdlU2E…

In a nutshell, it is because of empathy. For 95% of people, helping another person means sharing their joy, while watching another person suffer means sharing their suffering. The irony of statism is that it always seems to end up with the 5% who don't feel empathy being in control of "helping" everyone. The particularly unfortunate part is that social bonds are weakened, since by having the state as an intermediary, people are prevented from directly interacting with and helping one another and sharing bonds through oxytocin.

@ppwh, yes, I remember this event. Just a friendly reminder that those were municipal firefighters, not a private corporation:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/06/let-it…

> Just a friendly reminder that those were municipal firefighters, not a private corporation:

I guess it kind of figures. When I was in "compassionate" Canada and went to a hospital, they wanted four figures up-front in cash before they would see me and I ended up having to walk away. That was with insurance that had told me before the trip that they covered Canada. By contrast, every private care facility I have been in the US has provided care first and worked out payment later.

@ppwh: Wrong again, I made no mention of whether I saw everything else staying the same or other changes around it. In the absence of this you should ask for clarifications rather than just going after the strawman that you did. In fact my original post is all about a complete overall to the tax system, so I don't see why you would assume that my suggestion about a fixed tax rate per transaction was in addition to the existing tax system.

@ppwh: You experiences with private care in the US sound atypical. I can't remember ever not being asked for my insurance info before a visit. That would include a couple of ER visits.

I've always found it funny how many Libertarians try to distance themselves from Ayn Rand, even though the beliefs are about 97.5% in common. The more honest ones just own up to the fact that they like her for the most part, but her philosophy needs a little tweak here and there.

@Dougster, In my experience at the ER they always ask for insurance info, but provide care before any money changes hands. The last time I went, it was a $600 copay, being that it was an ACA exchange plan that wasn't going to cover anything because of the deductible. The hospital accepted $200 at the end of the visit. I have been in without insurance before, too, and it was the same story. The bill they eventually mailed sucked, but at least they provided immediate care.

> Wrong again, I made no mention of whether I saw everything else staying the same or other changes around it.

Right, that's why I stated plainly what my assumptions had been and let it go.

@Dougster said: "You experiences with private care in the US sound atypical. I can't remember ever not being asked for my insurance info before a visit. That would include a couple of ER visits."

I don't think he meant that they don't ask for insurance. What he meant is that they will treat you for free if they have to, instead of letting you die while filling out forms. That was the purpose of the EMTALA act in 1986. In other words, every private hospital in the US has to accept all comers, regardless of the ability to pay. And if there was any doubt about that, the Affordable Care Act reiterated it in 2010. But in practice, before EMTALA, there were many charity hospitals in every metro area. They used to see people regardless of their ability to pay. No government mandates required.

@Dougster said: "I've always found it funny how many Libertarians try to distance themselves from Ayn Rand, even though the beliefs are about 97.5% in common. The more honest ones just own up to the fact that they like her for the most part, but her philosophy needs a little tweak here and there."

Speaking only for myself, I like Ayn Rand. I agree with almost everything she said. I disagree with her on gays (she hated them for some reason), but other than that, we're sympatico. I'm not an objectivist, but I am a libertarian and an atheist, so I guess that means I'm most of the way there. Objectivists seem to believe that philosophy is all you ever need, whereas most libertarians would say that you also need history, political science, economics, common sense, etc. I'm not trying to distance myself from her. I'm just saying that not everything she said should be "pinned" on libertarianism. We shouldn't be forced to answer for everything she said. This philosophy existed long before Ayn Rand did.

I would put Ayn Rand in the 5% who don't get empathy. The concept seemed to offend her. Pitting her against the darker elements of the 5%, I think she is pretty benign, though. Her philosophy against compelling anyone to do anything effectively leaves the other 95% to work out what to do unimpeded.

Yep, I remember there are some departures especially when it came to the non-initiation of violence stuff. Libertarians seemed more consistent on that.

I think she herself admitted that Libertarians and her came to the same conclusions on most issues, but she still hated them because they did not claim to do what she (wrongly) though she had done: derive it all from pure logic. Where, in her "mind", she succeeded where thousands of years of other philosophers failed. LOL! All very amusing.

ppwh: "I would put Ayn Rand in the 5% who don't get empathy."

Exactly. I think her books are good reading material from a psychological POV of view. The 5% who don't get empathy, plus whatever percentage of women fantasize about being raped and slicing and dicing themselves for their heroic men.

> plus whatever percentage of women fantasize about being raped

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bm9w7…

Apparently 32%. That increases to 62% if you include things such as fantasizing about forced LDKs.

"Researchers found that 52 percent of the women had fantasies about forced sex with a man, 32 percent about being raped and 28 percent about forced oral sex with a man. Overall, 62 percent of the women reported having had at least one fantasy around a forced sex act."

@Dougster,

Right, she hated us. She really believed that she was the first person in all of human history to ever systematize the philosophy of liberty, and that she had done so through pure logic, as you say. There is inconsistency because she gives a lot of credit to Aristotle, Jefferson, Aquinas, etc., but then she claims that she was a trailblazer and did it all herself. As I said before, she was a nutcase. But I still like her very much and I appreciate her work. After all, Gandhi, JFK, Mother Theresa, Ronald Reagan, Karl Marx, Charles Lindberg, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, George Bernard Shaw, Frida Kahlo, Cole Porter, Malcolm X, Susan B. Anthony, and even Jesus Christ, all said and did some very strange things throughout their lives. Sometimes they said contradictory things. And yet the people who love them, they REALLY love them. And no one is ever asked to answer for anything off-kilter that these people ever said. But somehow libertarians have to answer for everything that's ever been said or written by Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, etc.

I think the difference is partly that people see the influence of Rand and the like as more negative relative to an ideal world. But she really sets herself by claiming her conclusions follow from pure logic. Since most 14 y/o's and up can pick them apart and see that they don't, it then becomes a game of what psychological traits lead her to those conclusion since pure logic obviously didn't.

I also think she gets more attention since she, Friedman, Hayek do influence a move more toward "pure capitalism" which critics see not exactly ending up the way its advocates claim it would. In her case, it's particularly bad, b/c she explicitly she says although she imagines the poor and weak would be taken care of through voluntary charity in a pure capitalist system, even if they weren't it's not a strike against her philosophy. Friedman and Hayek were a bit kinder and gentler, or at least knew better than to say such a thing.


(My own belief is that a pure capitalist world would indeed be nothing like it's advocates imagine it would. I think it would quickly degenerate into feudalism (maybe two or three generations) with wealth far more concentrated then it even is now. The fundamental problem is that once you gain some wealth it's easier to gain more, so it becomes unstable. And once you lead relative to other gets big enough it's easier to kill them off than leave them as competitors via various anti-competitive practices.

I think most pure capitalist advocates see themselves as rather better than most of the rest of humanity, and think in a pure capitalist world they would be close to the top. But I think the reality it is everything would probably fall under the control one family and we would effectively be back to the middle ages. (Although to give some rare credit to SJG he says that in the middle ages the nobility had more obligations to peasants than the richest would under pure capitalism).)

@Dougster,

Well, let's remember that capitalism didn't exist in the middle ages. There have always been businessmen, but the organized system of capitalism didn't begin until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. Feudalism and mercantilism are the systems that preceded it. Capitalism requires certain preconditions in order to take root. It requires stable government, respect for property rights, a court system to handle disputes, due process, etc. We've lacked these things for most of human history. You can trace a direct line from the Magna Carta to the founding documents of the United States, to the beginnings of real capitalism. Under feudalism and the so-called Ancien Regime, if you had a business, or owned property, it could be taken away at the whim of a king or local strongman. Capitalism can't really exist under those conditions, because no one would ever make big risky investments under those conditions without official royal backing. Feudalism also depends on war. The descendants of the best fighters/warriors eventually became kings, queens, and nobles. And the smartest people who couldn't fight joined the church. Everyone else got what they got... which was virtually nothing. That's not capitalism. And look at the results: even poor people today live better than kings did a thousand years ago, at the peak of feudalism.

As for Ayn Rand, you're basically right. And she purposely made herself a target by saying outrageous things. Like when she was talking about self-interest. Whet she meant was: "Don't be self-sacrificing." But she purposely said "Be selfish," instead. It sounds more outrageous that way. By contrast, Friedman and Hayek would always come across as more mild-mannered. It's kind of like the difference between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. People would always assume that Cruz was a conservative nutjob, and that Rubio was a "sensible moderate," but really Rubio was just saying conservative things in a moderate tone of voice, while Cruz actually had some moderate positions, but he said them while frothing at the mouth LOL.

I have no problem paying taxes! The problem I have is that $.75 of every $1.00 is pissed away and/or stolen by crooked, lazy, inefficient, duplicated government "officials" who could not run a lemonade stand without 2 dozen supervisors.
Lets set a Flat tax for the feds at 20% on your income and state at 5-10% of your income. Get rid of all the confusing and special interest deductions and the unearned income credits. Raise the dependent deduction to a reasonable place like $12,500.00 each, that way a family of 4 can earn up to $50,000.00 and not pay income taxes and if you insist keep the PRIMARY home mortgage deduction. Stop the thieves like Bill and Hillary, Bill Gates, and dozens of others from hiding their income in not for profit "foundations that do nothing but hide money, pay big expense accounts and salaries to certain people (Chelsea).
Force the government to discharge every other person that works for it since there are usually 3 people doing the job that would take one in private industry son not decrease in services would be noticed.
eliminate government pensions before ANYONE turns 65 (except law enforcement and military) I am tired of congress getting a full pay pension for their "service" no matter how short. That includes the president.

Congress also should have to abide by any law it passes: Health care, OSHA, Sexual discrimination, insider trading, and minimum wage to but a few laws congress have exempted it self from to enslave us and enrich themselves.

This would do many things that would benefit the average taxpayer greatly. The government wastes more than it takes in.
A flat rate will never happen because all the lawyers, accountants and bureaucrats that make billions leaching off the misery of the taxpayer will not allow it not to mention the politicians who hide behind it and us it every election claiming they will reform.

A constitutional amendment needs to happen:
1}Fix the tax rate at not more than 30% including all taxes, income, sales, vat, excise, property and all others. Failure to balance the budget means no pay for any government official and elected officials must return with interest their pay and expense accounts.
2} The government must balance the budget to income versus expenditures.(only able to consume up to 30% of the GNP including ALL government programs and unfunded mandates)
3} Absolute Term Limits: 5 terms/10 years in the House and 3 terms/18years as a Senator- A 401 K plan will be made available for all government officials to pay into just like the rest of us - no guaranteed pensions. No payout until 65 just like the rest of us!
4} Social Security is to stand on its own and taking funds from Social Security for other government program as has been done in the past is now illegal punishable by prison for embezzlement.

In a real democracy the day when you pay your taxes, would be a day of celebration, because you're getting together to provide resources for the programs you decided on.
In the United States, the day when you pay your taxes is a day of mourning because this alien force - the government - is coming to rob you of your hard-earned money. That's the general attitude, and it's a tremendous victory for the opponents of democracy, and, of course, any privileged sector is going to hate democracy. You can see it in the healthcare debate.
To answer your question; in a real democracy yes, otherwise no.

@CJKent, what does this have to do with democracy? What if it's a "real" democracy but your side lost the election? Would paying taxes still be a day of celebration for you?